Now that's one epic addiction!
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16964847-former-san-diego-mayor-acknowledges-using-charity-for-gambling-losing-1-billion?lite
QuoteFormer San Diego mayor acknowledges using charity for gambling, losing $1 billion
By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News
NBCSanDiego.com
O'Connor walked into the federal courthouse with her attorney by her side Thursday.
Former San Diego Mayor Maureen O'Connor acknowledged in federal court Thursday that she took $2 million from her late husband's charitable foundation to pay for her addiction to video poker — and lost $1 billion wagering over the course of a decade.
O'Connor, the mayor of California's second largest city from 1986 to 1992, pleaded not guilty to money laundering as part of a deal with prosecutors that will defer the charges for two years as she attempts to repay the debt.
An attorney for O'Connor, Eugene Iredale, told reporters outside the courthouse that his client had severe health problems, including a brain tumor, that led to her gambling addition, according to NBC San Diego.
Iredale said his client won more than $1 billion from 2000 to 2009 playing video poker in Las Vegas, Atlantic City and San Diego, but lost most of it.
After dipping into the red, she wound up compiling $13 million in debt, according her attorney.
Prosecutors allege that between September 2008 and March 2009, the 66-year-old took more than $2,088,000 from the foundation started by her late husband, Jack-in-the-Box founder Robert O. Peterson.
O'Connor was elected the first female mayor of San Diego after serving eight years on city council. She was married to Peterson from 1977 until his death in 1994, and her estate was at one time worth $40 to $50 million.
She lost about 50 million, not a billion.
She ain't gonna repay shit. She just doesn't wanna die in prison.
Did she used to be beautiful?
Quote from: Phillip V on February 15, 2013, 07:57:56 AM
Did she used to be beautiful?
*checks* If so, it was a very long time ago. She did used to be the wife (and is now the widow) of Jaron's boss, though. :)
If she's the widow of Jaron's boss, that means he's working for an undead. :ph34r:
Sounds like she was a pretty good gambler in only losing a few million of wagers of over a billion.
After all, despite what most gamblers will tell you, the huge majority of them lose overall, often badly.
Quote from: mongers on February 15, 2013, 09:42:27 AM
Sounds like she was a pretty good gambler in only losing a few million of wagers of over a billion.
After all, despite what most gamblers will tell you, the huge majority of them lose overall, often badly.
:yeahright: I have a system.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 02:38:29 AM
She lost about 50 million, not a billion.
Well, it depends on how you want to count it. She started out with a fortune in the $50 million range, and lost all of it, plus went $13 million in the hole. But according to her attorney, she at some point had won over $1 billion, but then lost it all back (frankly, I'm sceptical that she ever won that much, but it is what the article says the attorney stated). But even if the thread title and title of the article used the $40-$50 million figure, it would be misleading, because what got her into legal trouble was the roughly $2 million she took from the charity to cover her losses.
It seems to be counting every occasion she was up for the night, how I read it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 15, 2013, 10:22:02 AM
It seems to be counting every occasion she was up for the night, how I read it.
Yeah, that's what it sounds like to me. And it's a retarded way to count gambling winnings (although IRS doesn't think so). Gambling involves a lot of winning, a little bit more of losing. Adding up just the up sessions, or just the down sessions, can get you to some really huge sums that have no bearing on reality.